If I paid attention to all the advice of the form: "If someone is X, does Y, or says Z, it's not worth even engaging with them", then that basically means about 2/3 of all human beings would be outside of my zone of engagement. What's wrong with that? Well, unless you have a well-armed militia, the only way to change anything in the world is through winning hearts and minds (to quote GWB).
2/3rds sounds high, but that aside, a problem is that engaging on bogus terms can amount to negative engagement -- you leave them worse off than before by indulging the nonsense.
I realize this is not genius political strategy. Right now it's all I've got.
Word.
If I paid attention to all the advice of the form: "If someone is X, does Y, or says Z, it's not worth even engaging with them", then that basically means about 2/3 of all human beings would be outside of my zone of engagement. What's wrong with that? Well, unless you have a well-armed militia, the only way to change anything in the world is through winning hearts and minds (to quote GWB).
2/3rds sounds high, but that aside, a problem is that engaging on bogus terms can amount to negative engagement -- you leave them worse off than before by indulging the nonsense.
I realize this is not genius political strategy. Right now it's all I've got.